G'day Tim,I think it should go after question, since here "period" means "full stop" not "period of time". Without a comma it suggests that "question period" is one thing, "a time for questions".
Hi .,, - no, I don't know about Australian English but this symbol "." that I would call a "full stop" is called a "period" in American English. So when you say, or rather when an American says "I don't want to do something period" it means "I don't want to do it full stop" eg "I don't want to do it at all". So I think the sentence given should have a comma before the word period, the whole thing meaning "...and we look forward to the question, that's for sure!".G'day Tim,
I'm not sure that I understand you.
Are you saying that the sentence finishes with two full stops?
Yes, absolutely - if the sense is meant to be "question period" as in Q+A session then Dimcl is right. However, I must add that in that case I can't see where else the comma would be in the sentence.Don't you mean a "question period" as in a question and answer session? If that's the case, you wouldn't put a comma after "question"...
I would place a comma before "and."
I don't know where to place a comma in the following sentence. Any help would be appreciated.
All of us are very eager to see the presentation and we particularly look forward to the question period.
I would put a comma there, too. I kind of think it is better to use it, because there are two different subjects on each side of the sentence; well, not by meaning, but by grammar. "All of us" is not the same pronoun as "we," although it has the same meaning and conjugation.
If you left out "we," you wouldn't put a comma:
All of us are very eager to see the presentation and
weparticularly look forward to the question period.
However, as you can see that it wouldn't work (and sound somewhat incomplete) without the "we," the second sentence is an independent clause, which requires - by definition - a comma. A conjunction like "and" or "but" in English cannot link two independent clauses by itself --yes it can [Thomas]--; a comma is usually needed. In an informal text, I wouldn't mind not seeing a comma there, but it's better to put one in essays or similar works--both registers may or may not include a comma; it is contingent on need [Thomas].
Well, I am a tad taken aghast by this, I must admit—and I don’t know where you picked up the idea that it doesn’t but this is what everybody (in Poland at least) is taught at school. To me it is so obvious that I don’t quite remember where/when—probably at my primary school. You use a comma to separate and to clarify some things/ideas that you list; a , is also an indicator of separation from the rest of elements of a sentence. I am quite confident that you will find a similar explanation in books/dictionaries.Hi Thomas,
I don't know where you got the idea that a comma's purpose is to separate. In English, commas are used for two main purposes:
Thus it separates them, it’s the conjunction (as its suggestive name points it nicely out) that joins the independent clauses and the comma (its etymology is also very suggestive) that separates them from each other to indicate where one ends and another one begins.The purpose of a comma before a coordinating conjunction that joins two independent clauses is to make it clear where one clause ends and the next one begins. As I said, this is not necessary in a sentence that is short enough to preclude ambiguity ("The bell rang and class began.").
I agree and I think that each writer should have some intuition of where a comma should be inserted and when it shouldn’t. As for stifling rules I didn’t mean that they are all stifling except for some of them (and it’s a general statement rather than relating only to this particular issue).Yes, you don't officially have to use the comma, but if it maximizes clarity, I consider it sensible and not at all "stifling."